GANGADHAR Vs. SATINDERJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Misc. No. 10441-M of 1989 and Criminal Misc. 1263-M of 1990 have both been filed for quashing FIR No. 171 got registered by Smt. Satinderjit Kaur against the two petitioners in their separate individual petitions aforesaid and one Gurmeet Singh Walia, in Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana under Sections 408, 409. 411/34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and the proceedings taken on its basis by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana against the petitioners on the grounds that there is total lack of jurisdiction in Ludhiana Criminal Courts, that from a reading of the FIR no offence is made out against either one of the two petitioners and that the entire dealing between the author of the FIR and Gurmeet Singh Walia is of civil nature.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the stand of the petitioners before this Court, it is necessary to reproduce FIR No. 171 dated 26.8.1988 which reads :

(3.) APPLYING these tests to the recitals in the complaint reproduced above it would appear that the commission of a criminal offence is disclosed against Sardar Singh and Ganga Dhar, the two petitioners in their individual quashing petitions aforesaid. Relevant assertions made therein against Sardar Singh read, "That accused No. 2 is the father-in-law of the accused No. 1 and be had brought the accused No. 1 to the applicant for his appointment as an agent with her, and he had stood surety verbally for the accused No. 1 before the applicant to the effect that in case the firm suffers any loss due to the negligence on part of the accused No. 1 the accused and that if the firm suffers any loss the accused No. 2 in person alongwith his properties shall be liable for the appointment of accused No. 1 as an agent for the firm of the applicant, in the presence of Sh. Manjit Singh Sekhon S/o Sh. Bakhtawar Singh, r/o Atam Nagar, Ludhiana, on 16.1.1988." That applicant accompanied by Paramjit Singh s/o Santokh Singh, r/o Village Lakhowal, Tehsil Distt. Ludhiana went to accused No.2 and enquired about the accused No. 1 on which accused No. 2 told that he is in possession of the money of applicant which he will hand-over to her after coming of the accused No. 1, but now accused No. 2 has refused to pay her money."